Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavior: it returns a risk preview with limited warnings. No side effects mentioned, but the tool is likely read-only. Could add that it is non-destructive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Concise and well-structured: the first line states purpose, followed by output summary, then parameter explanations in bullet format. No redundant sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has two parameters and no output schema. The description explains inputs and the basic output (risk level/score, up to two warnings). It also mentions the full report endpoint. Lacks exact format of risk level, but sufficient for a preview tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage, but the tool description adds concrete examples for 'chain' (e.g., 'base', 'ethereum', 'bsc', 'arbitrum', 'solana') and clarifies 'address' as the token contract or mint address, adding significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clearly states the tool provides a 'Free PREVIEW' of a rug/scam-risk scan for tokens on EVM chains or Solana. Distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on preview of risk scan, while siblings are paid_api_info and wallet_report_preview.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states it returns risk level/score and up to two warnings, and references the paid HTTP endpoint for the full report. Provides parameter examples but could be clearer on when to use this preview versus alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.